Can anyone think of a case where the DOJ had secured a guilty plea and had gotten deep into the sentencing phase only to have the charges dropped?

There are so many residents about to have egg on zer faces.

Prognightmare said:

---

---

I hope someone Tweets this at ****-for-brains.

I'm guessing someone like Sara will put together a long list of people saying similar things.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Can anyone think of a case where the DOJ had secured a guilty plea and had gotten deep into the sentencing phase only to have the charges dropped?

---

No, but I'm also not aware of any other coup attempts the DoJ has participated in. (Mueller and Ukraine/Ciaramella are the only two.)

I'll do it right now.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Can anyone think of a case where the DOJ had secured a guilty plea and had gotten deep into the sentencing phase only to have the charges dropped?

---

No. That leaves two reasonable possibilities.

1. The dismissal is entirely political
2. The prosecution was really screwed up in the first place.


Or maybe it is some of both 1 and 2.


I was going to note that the Motion to Dismiss absolutely covered Flynn from any charge he lied to the Court. The end of the arguments specifically says the dismissal is based on erroneous information about the status of the FBI's investigation at the time of the interview. Flynn would not know that information directly and would not be on the hook for that information being false .

Outstanding!

Link to transcripts

Quote:

---

They asked to dismiss with prejudice. If he grants it that way, they'll be hard pressed to try him again.

---

Not exactly. There is still the exposure for lying to Judge Sullivan during the original sentencing hearing while under oath. Sure, likely fruit of the poisonous tree but it is still possible.

Interesting though, the same people complaining about the DOJ being politicized are saying that Biden could prosecute him.

thoughts?

Safe at Home said:

---

Interesting though, the same people complaining about the DOJ being politicized or saying that Biden could prosecute him.

---

True. Except if Biden were to win, Trump would pardon Flynn anyway.

My heavens, some people are incredibly stupid.

So of all the thousands of unmasking's in the NSA database anybody want to bet that Sullivan was at least one of those. After everything else we have learned it is certainly possible from these criminals.. I would bet every supreme court justice and federal judge was searched

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

*****-for-brains sent a letter threatening anyone that releases them. Really makes me want Grenell to release them.

---

And Schiff, unfortunately would be correct except for the vote to release.

Notice Grennel has referred to this pre-existing vote several times. The only reason his office even has them is because of the vote to release and the classified information review. Sure it is a fig leaf for Grennel if he releases them over Schiff's objections but Schiff can't really do much of anything about it.

---

Why is Schiff obstructing Congress?

ruddyduck said:

---

thoughts?

---

Thread

Well, crap! But I know why Sydney did that and it is without prejudice to refile. So if Sullivan gets hinky (again) she can refile them. But that's in the criminal setting, not the civil setting. Still wide open in civil setting.


Yes it will take years and years but a Bivens action could bring a lot more to light...eventually.

3 Toed Pete said:

---

So of all the thousands of unmasking's in the NSA database anybody want to bet that Sullivan was at least one of those. After everything else we have learned it is certainly possible from these criminals.. I would bet every supreme court justice and federal judge was searched

---

John "turncoat" Roberts.

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

*****-for-brains sent a letter threatening anyone that releases them. Really makes me want Grenell to release them.

---

And Schiff, unfortunately would be correct except for the vote to release.

Notice Grennel has referred to this pre-existing vote several times. The only reason his office even has them is because of the vote to release and the classified information review. Sure it is a fig leaf for Grennel if he releases them over Schiff's objections but Schiff can't really do much of anything about it.

---

Why is Schiff obstructing Congress?

---

Because he thinks he can. And actually he can. Pelosi will never allow an ethics complaint against him.

But Durham can use a GJ to subpoena him and get him under oath. Probably not gonna happen but if he keeps it up, it might.

aggiehawg said:

---

Well, crap! But I know why Sydney did that and it is without prejudice to refile. So if Sullivan gets hinky (again) she can refile them. But that's in the criminal setting, not the civil setting. Still wide open in civil setting.


Yes it will take years and years but a Bivens action could bring a lot more to light...eventually.

---

It's going to hack me off if I never get to see all those documents Sidney outlined in her memos. I don't have years remaining...I've already exceeded expectations.

Something I haven't seen mentioned but I've been thinking along these lines:

(And apologizes in advance if I get the wording wrong on some of this stuff, though I think you'll get the gist)

...In response to the release of the new materials by DOJ and Covington, Judge Sullivan gave the prosecution a deadline of this week to respond. Those of us who know what those materials contain, know this motion to dismiss is the only logical conclusion. My question or musing is: How could it be any other way? How was the prosecution, van Grack, etc., going to realistically try to keep the case going in light of all this new info? In my estimation, if van Grack or anyone else on the prosecution tried it, his ass would be even more so on the line than it already is.

Am I wrong? Is there any argument, any Iraqi Information Minister handwaving, anything at all that could have worked? Assuming of course Sullivan is a fair and impartial judge.

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Well, crap! But I know why Sydney did that and it is without prejudice to refile. So if Sullivan gets hinky (again) she can refile them. But that's in the criminal setting, not the civil setting. Still wide open in civil setting.


Yes it will take years and years but a Bivens action could bring a lot more to light...eventually.

---

It's going to hack me off if I never get to see all those documents Sidney outlined in her memos. I don't have years remaining...I've already exceeded expectations.

---

You're Doc Holiday in my book.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They asked to dismiss with prejudice. If he grants it that way, they'll be hard pressed to try him again.

---

Not exactly. There is still the exposure for lying to Judge Sullivan during the original sentencing hearing while under oath. Sure, likely fruit of the poisonous tree but it is still possible.

---

I respectfully disagree. The dismissal is based on erroneous assertions by the prosecution that Flynn chose to accept...specifically on materiality of his statements to an investigation. I don't think Flynn is on the hook for perjury on the materiality aspects of the information or allocation.

Regarding Flynn's factual statements to the a Court, the dismissal does not rely on an assertion that Flynn did not make false statements to the FBI.

Quote:

---

It's going to hack me off if I never get to see all those documents Sidney outlined in her memos. I don't have years remaining...I've already exceeded expectations.

---

I hear you. I was supposed to have died nearly 30 years ago, according to my mother because I had the same genetic kidney disease as my sister. Only she lied, I didn't. But I digress.

Hope Durham has already taken care of a lot of that, though. Durham, Barr and Jensen talked a lot, from what I understand.

The dam has broken.

will25u said:

---

---

I'd like to see Sullivan call them back in, then apologize to Flynn for the way he was railroaded.

Then I'd like to see him go after the prosecutors that withheld evidence.

Never gonna happen.

Or John "Blackmailed" Roberts.

The ultimate use of the "wrap up smear" Pelosi described.

will25u said:

---

---

The motion covered this. He doesn't really have a choice, if they're correct on the law.

Quote:

---

.I've already exceeded expectations.

---

Naah Hawg, you just catching your second wind!